Insurers Refuse to Cover Meta in Lawsuits Over Alleged Social Media Addiction

Meta Platforms Inc. is embroiled in a mounting legal fight—not just with thousands of plaintiffs alleging its platforms contribute to youth addiction and mental health issues, but now also with its own insurers. At the heart of the issue is whether companies like Hartford Casualty Insurance Co. and Chubb Ltd. are obligated to cover Meta’s defense costs in lawsuits alleging the company designed its platforms to be deliberately addictive.

The insurers maintain that such allegations fall outside policy coverage, arguing the claims stem from intentional acts, which liability policies typically exclude. They’ve asked the Delaware Superior Court to confirm they have no duty to defend. Meta disagrees, saying the lawsuits don’t prove intent and that the insurers are breaching their contracts by refusing coverage.

Adding complexity, Meta sued its insurers in California for bad faith, but a federal judge dismissed the case, siding with the original proceedings in Delaware. That dismissal didn’t end the dispute—it merely concentrated the courtroom clash.

As multidistrict litigation around social media harms unfolds in California, the insurance question remains unsettled. The outcome will likely shape how insurers approach tech liability claims going forward, especially when accusations involve user addiction and mental health impacts.